IG XII 9.212: a MACEDONIAN OFFICER at ERETRIA Aus: Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 96 (1993) 249–257

RICHARD A. BILLOWS

IG XII 9.212: A MACEDONIAN OFFICER AT ERETRIA aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 96 (1993) 249–257

249

IG XII 9.212: A Macedonian Officer at Eretria IG XII 9.212 is a decree of the city of Eretria on Euboia, honoring a Macedonian officer named Arrhidaios son of Alexandros as a public benefactor. It was first published by A. Wil- helm in "Epigraphai ex Euboias", EA 1892, 126-33 no. 3, with a facsimile and commentary. The text given by Ziebarth in IG XII 9 differs slightly from that of Wilhelm in the reconstruc- tions proposed for lines 10-13, but is otherwise that of Wilhelm as Ziebarth never saw the inscription itself. Wilhelm concluded from the letter forms that the inscription probably dated from the first half of the 3rd century BC. In the opening lines of the decree mention is made of a basileus Alexandros, whom Wilhelm sought to identify in order to date the inscription more closely. He noted two rulers named Alexandros in the first half of the 3rd century: the son of the famous king Pyrrhos of Epeiros, whom it would be difficult, however, to associate with Eretria; and the less well known Alexandros Kraterou, nephew and viceroy over Greece of the famous Macedonian king Antigonos Gonatas. This latter Alexandros ca. 250 rebelled against his uncle and made himself an independent ruler in central Greece, and he is in fact mentioned in the Suda s.v. Euphorion as ÉAlejãndrou toË ba!ileÊ!anto! EÈbo¤a!, uﬂoË d¢ KrateroË. As he is thus specifically associated with Euboia, Wilhelm tentatively identified him as the king Alexandros of the Eretrian decree, which he consequently dated to ca. 250.1 This assumption of Wilhelm's has found universal assent; as far as I have been able to discover only one scholar, R. Urban, has expressed any reservations, though Wilhelm himself proposed his theory with a certain diffidence.2 In point of fact IG XII 9.212 has been largely ignored by modern scholars, the only discussion of any length devoted to it being that of O. Picard in his book cited in n. 1 at pp. 272- 74. There are, however, serious problems with the interpretation of it proposed by Wilhelm and Picard, which merit more careful examination than they have yet received. At lines 10-13 the text, though somewhat broken, certainly praises Arrhidaios for helping the Greeks to expel garrisons from their cities. Picard concludes from this that Alexandros Kraterou, Arrhi- daios' putative master, had a policy of removing the Macedonian garrisons of his uncle Anti-

1 See further Wilhelm RE s.v. Alexandros no. 15; O. Picard, Chalkis et la confédération eubéenne (BEFAR 234, 1979) 272-74. The date of his rebellion is disputed and cannot be gone into here; his death oc- curred about 245—see Plutarch, Aratos 17.1-18.1 recounting how Antigonos recaptured Korinthos after reput- edly having Alexandros poisoned. 2 R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des Achaiischen Bundes (Historia Einzelschriften 35, Wiesbaden 1979) 22 n. 87 remarks that the attribution to Alexandros Kraterou cannot be regarded as proven. The attribution is accepted without comment by e.g. W.S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London 1911); W.W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford 1914) 355 n. 35; and Ed. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique I (Nancy 1966) 286- 87. Wilhelm himself stated that Alexandros was the king of this inscription "katå tØn gn≈mhn mou" (EA 1892 p. 131), and in his RE article he drew conclusions from IG XII 9.212 with the caution "wenn dieselbe richtig auf diesen Alexandros [sc. Kraterou] bezogen wird." 250 Richard A. Billows gonos from the Greek cities, renewing in this the propaganda about liberating the Greeks spread by his step-grandfather (and Antigonos Gonatas' father) Demetrios Poliorketes.3 Con- sideration of the nature of Alexandros' power and position, however, renders such a conclusion highly suspect. Alexandros had been placed by Antigonos in command of the Macedonian garrisons in Greece, especially at Chalkis, Korinthos, and perhaps Athens, the three main bastions of An- tigonos' power in Greece. We may ask ourselves how he went about rebelling against Anti- gonos, and on what he thereafter based his own power as ruler: the Macedonian garrisons could not simply be told to go away without some counterforce to back up the command, and with the garrisons gone Alexandros' power would have been gone too without some other force to rely upon. We know in fact that Alexandros, as independent ruler, had military forces and engaged in warfare and the garrisoning of Greek cities: warfare is attested against the Macedonian garrison at Athens, which remained loyal to Antigonos, and it is certain that Alexandros maintained a garrison in Korinthos.4 We may be sure, in fact, that far from ex- pelling the Macedonian garrisons of Chalkis and Korinthos, a proceeding which would have been difficult and dangerous if not impossible, Alexandros based his own power upon these very garrison troops, whom he merely seduced from their loyalty to Antigonos; in short that Alexandros' rebellion from Antigonos simply involved refusing to accept or follow orders from Antigonos and in future ruling his cities and garrisons in his own interest. The other in- formation we possess about Alexandros shows him to have been very far from the sort of ruler to be making propaganda about Greek liberty and freedom from garrisons (see n. 4 above). The difficulties justify a fresh look at the inscription, its date, the identify of king Alexander, and the historical and political background.

I. The Inscription (see pl. VII) The height of the stele is 64 cm., and the inscribed text of 26 lines covers roughly the top three quarters of the surface. The surface of the stone is in a very poor condition: badly battered at the edges and worn as well as chipped in the centre, where much of the text is lost. This was already the case in Wilhelm's day, but the

3 Demetrios Poliorketes married Phila, the widow of Alexander's famous general Krateros (Plut. Dem. 14.2). Phila was the mother of Krateros by Krateros, and of Antigonos Gonatas by Demetrios (see Plut. Moralia 486a where Krateros jr. and Antigonos Gonatas are cited as a case of devoted brothers; cf. R.A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley 1990) app. 3 nos. 10 and 60). Alexandros was thus the half-nephew of Gonatas, and the step-grandson of Poliorketes. 4 That Alexandros Kraterou maintained a garrison on Akrokorinthos appears from Plutarch, Aratos 17.1- 18.2, which describes how Antigonos Gonatas captured this garrison by surprise shortly after Alexandros' death; that he had a garrison at Chalkis is not specifically attested, but may be regarded as virtually certain, for Chalkis appears to have been, as it were, his second capital (cf. the anecdote preserved by the Suda s.v. Eupho- rion), and it is not clear how else he could have maintained his power there in the face of the perennial Greek preference for freedom. In addition, it appears that Alexandros installed a man named Nikokles as tyrant of Sikyon, which led to bad blood between himself and Aratos, who managed to depose Nikokles (see on this Will, Histoire politique I 288-90; and cf. Plut., Aratos 18.2 mentioning an attack on Korinthos by Aratos when Alexandros was still in charge there). Though Alexandros did later have an alliance with the Achaian League (Plut. ibid.), there is no evidence to suggest that he was regarded as a champion of Greek freedom, or that he led an alliance of "the Greeks" (he was in fact at war with Athens and Argos; see IG II2 774 and 1225). IG XII 9.212: A Macedonian Officer at Eretria 251 stone has deteriorated further since then, and some of the letters read by Wilhelm are no longer visible (these are underlined in the text below). The first three lines, which are entirely preserved and have 30, 27 and 28 letters respectively, indicate ca. 30 as the number of letters per line. However, the writing is uneven and untidy, the letter-size and spacing varying quite widely; in places the writing went right up to the very right edge of the stone as the cutter sought either to avoid having to break up a word, or at least to break it syllabically; and in the latter portions of the inscription the lines are somewhat longer as the stone widens slightly towards the bottom (it is ca. 28.5 cm. wide just above the first line of text, and 30 cm. wide just below the last line). In addition, the letters tend overall to be slightly smaller in the latter part of the inscription. Consequently, there is quite a wide variation in the number of letters per line (between 27 and 34). After each line I give in paren- theses the number of letters in it. The stone is stored in the Eretria Museum with the inventory n. 1152, as I learned from Professor Denis Knoepfler of the Université de Neuchatel. Thanks to the kind co-operation of the Chalkis Ephoreia of the Greek Archaeological Service, and of the guards of the Eretria Museum, I was able to inspect the inscription in 1983 and again in 1987, when I was also able to photograph it.5 My inspection confirmed most of Wilhelm's readings, at least wherever the letters still survive, except at one crucial point at the end of line 6, where Wil- helm overlooked the worn and partially destroyed last letter of the line. ofl !trathgo‹ ka‹ ofl prÒbouloi e‰pon: (30) §peidØ ÉArrida›o! ÉAlejãndrou Ma- (27) ked∆n énØr égayÚ! g°gonen per¤ te (28) 4 ÉAl°jandron tÚn basil°a eÈerg°thn (29) gegenhm°no[n toË dÆm]ou toË ÉEretri- (28) °]vn ka‹ p[er‹ toÁ! ``` ]o n ta! ba!ile›! ka‹ t«i d[Æm]v[i t«i ÉEretri°]vn diatele[› (31) 8 e]Înou! Ã[n ka‹ l°gei ka‹ prãt]tei Íp¢r (30) t∞! pÒl[ev! ˜ti ín dÊnhtai] égayÚn ka[‹ (30) !]unagv[n¤zetai proyÊmv! t]o[›]! ÜEllh![i (31) t]oË tå[! frourå! §kbãllein] §k t«n pÒ- (29) 12 l]evn, [¶dojen t«i dÆmvi pr]Ò[j]enon e[‰- (28) nai ka‹ [eÈerg°thn toË dÆmou t]oË ÉEretr[i- (32) °vn [ka‹ aÈtÚn ka‹ §kgÒnou!: e‰n]ai d¢ a[È- (31) t«i k[a‹ g∞! ka‹ ofik¤a! ¶gkth!in] ka‹ é!ul[¤- (34) 16 an ka[‹ êdeian ka‹ é!fãleian k]atå g∞n (30) ka‹ k[atå yãlattan aÈt«i ka‹ §kgÒn]oi! ka[‹ (34) p]ol[°mou ka‹ efirÆnh! ka‹ ét°le]ian e[fi- (30) !ãgo[nti ka‹ §jãgonti pãntvn ka‹] prÒ!o- (32) 20 d]on p[rÚ! tØn boulØn ka‹ tÚn d∞m]on pr≈- (30) tvi me[tå tå flerã: énagrãcai d¢ tÒd]e tÚ c[Æ- (32) fi!ma §[n !tÆlhi liy¤nhi ka‹ !t∞!]ai §n (31) tv› fler«[i toË ÉApÒllvno! toË Daf]nhfÒro[u. (33) 24 Strat[hgo‹ ı de›na toË de›no! ka‹] !unãr- x]vn: PrÒ[bouloi Ù de›na …]ou ka‹ !u- nãrxvn.

5 Thanks are due to Prof. Knoepfler for his very kind assistance, including reading an earlier draft of this paper, and to the staffs of the British School at Athens, of the Chalkis Ephoreia of the Greek Archaeological service, and of the museum at Eretria, for helping me to be able to inspect and photograph this inscription. 252 Richard A. Billows

Commentary The restorations are mostly those of Wilhelm and Ziebarth, based on a number of extremely similar decrees of the late 4th and early 3rd centuries. I note where I have disagreed with Wilhelm's text: 6 ka‹ – – – ba!ile›!: Wilhelm read and restored ka‹ p[er‹ toÁ! !un]Ònta! ba!ile›. This reading is, however, without parallel, not only in Eretrian inscriptions, but so far as I can tell in any Hellenistic honorific decree. Professor Christian Habicht has reminded me (private comm., April 1991) that the definite article t«i would have been required before ba!ile›. Knoepfler has suggested reading par]Ònta! for !un]Ònta! but that does not solve this, nor deal with the main problem, which is the apparent demeaning of the person honored by plac- ing him below unspecified members of the court.6 Moreover, a close examination of the edge of the stone at this spot shows traces of another letter, a sigma (see pl. VII b at spot indicated by arrow). The last word in the line is consequently ba!ile›!, agreeing with the participle -onta!. The cutter inscribed this letter right at the very edge of the stone, as he also did for example with the last letters of lines 5, 9, and 11, and he made the sigma rather elongated to fit it in. It is evident that a parallel is being made between Arrhidaios' attitude towards the Eretrians while serving under king Alexandros, and under some other kings. But the relation between Alexandros, followed by a perfect participle, and the other kings, preceded presumably by a present participle, is not immediately apparent. Prima facie, the perpect participle may refer to Alexandros as one who still is a benefactor of the Eretrian people and, consequently, may be contemporary with the other kings. On the other hand, as long as Alexan- dros' benefactions are perceived as still valid and effective, they may have occured much earlier than those Arrhidaios bestowed on Eretria in association with the other kings.7 This consideration opens the possibility that a temporal split is involved in the distinction between king Alexandros and the other kings, and that the latter are referred to by a phrase like p[er‹ toÁ! nËn] ˆnta! ba!ile›!. The phrase cannot be exactly paralleled, but closely similar usages are known: e.g. in the contemporary Eretrian decree IG XII 9.211 we read at lines 7- 8 §n to›! nËn genom°noi! kindÊnoi!; Syll. 116 from Athens has pr°!be!i to›! te prot°roi! ka‹ to›! nËn at lines 7- 8 (late 5th c.); from Tegea Syll. 306 line 54 reads ﬁn tØi nËn §Ònti kairØi (324/3 BC); and Polybios V 90 offers …xãrin t∞! t«n nËn ba!il°vn mikrodo!¤a!. The language remains ambiguous, and only parallels and historical probability will help to determine who is the king Alexander of this inscription. To this we will return. Likewise it is rather surprising that the "present kings" should be referred to in such a way without explicit identification, but of course to Eretrians at the time no such identification will have been necessary. And in fact a number of early Hellenistic inscriptions are known which refer simply to "the kings" (plural) without specific identification, but since these raise other issues I shall adduce and discuss them below. 10-13: Wilhelm tentatively suggested here the following !]unagv[nizÒmeno! diå pantÚ! t]o[›]! ÜEllh![i t]oË tå[! frourå! époxvr∞!ai] §k t«n pÒ- l]evn [para¤tio! §g°neto, pr]Ò[j]enon e‰nai ktl. Ziebarth altered this, and he was clearly right to do so as an expression of the people's decision is required before the words prÒjenon e‰nai. The version printed by Ziebarth in IG XII 9 ran:

6 As the phrase per‹ te ÉAl°jandron tÚn ba!il°a discreetly refers to Arrhidaios' position as a subordinate of that king, a parallel phrase ka‹ per‹ toÁ! parÒnta! (t“) ba!ile› could only be taken to subordinate him to these unspecified other satellites of king Alexandros also. Such terminology is simply inconceiv- able in an early Hellenistic honorific decree, as such decrees were very careful not in any way to detract from the dignity of the person honored—hence the very discreetness of the reference to Arrhidaios' relationship with king Alexandros already referred to: see in general on the carefully respectful terminology of early Hellenistic honorific decrees G. Herman "The 'Friends' of the early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?" Talanta 12/13 (1980/81) 103-49. 7 In this regard the old observations by J. Wackernagel are illuminating (Vorlesungen über Syntax I [Ba- sel2 1926] 170). By the 3rd cent. BC the perfect can be used very much in the same sense as the aorist ("narra- tive perfect" in Wackernagel's terminology). IG XII 9.212: A Macedonian Officer at Eretria 253

!]unagv[n¤zetai ba!ile› ka‹ t]o[›]! ÜEllh![i t]oË tå[! frourå! épi°nai] §k t«n pÒ- l]evn, [dedÒxyai pr]Ò[j]enon e‰nai ktl. This restoration is also unsatisfactory, for a number of reasons: now that it is clear that line 6 referred to basileis, the word basilei cannot be restored in line 10, so that one should restore some adverbial modifier such as my proyÊmv! or Wilhelm's diå pantÚ!; Ziebarth's genitive of purpose toË tå! frourå! épi°nai is rather weak, and it makes sense to replace épi°nai by a more vigorous verb such as ekballein or ekpiptein. Line 12 is only 22 letters long in Ziebarth's version, which is much too short: instead of dedochthai what is clearly required here is ¶dojen t«i dÆmvi as in the similar Eretrian honorific decrees IG XII 9.208, 210, and 211, for example. In my version the sense remains very much the same, however, as in those of Wilhelm and Zie- barth, and though these lines are heavily restored the general sense is in fact assured by what remains: for what else could an officer be fighting with Greeks to remove from the cities if not their garrisons? 19: Wilhelm restored e[fi]!ãgo[nti efi! ÉEr°trian ka‹ §jãgonti ka‹] prÒ!o[d]on ktl. This gives the line 37 letters, which seems too many, and the phrase is not paralleled in any other extant Eretrian decree. The usual formula in late 4th and early 3rd century decrees is, with minor variations, ét°leian efi!ãgonti ka‹ §jãgonti kayãper ka‹ to›! êlloi! ÉEretrieË!in (so e.g. in IG XII 9.199, 202, 203, 206, etc.). My restoration is based on IG XII 9.206 line 15 efi!ãgonti ka‹ §jãgonti pãntvn kayãper ktl, and ibid. 196 line 12 ét°leian §n ÉEretr¤ai pãntvn.

Translation "The strategoi and the probouloi proposed: since Arrhidaios son of Alexandros the Ma- cedonian has been a good man both in association with king Alexandros, who was a benefactor of the Eretrian people, and in association with the present kings, and since he continues to be well disposed to the people of Eretria and says and does concerning the city whatever good he can, and since he is fighting zealously along with the Greeks to expel the garrisons from the cities, it is decided by the people that he be a proxenos and benefactor of the Eretrian people, both himself and his descendants; let him have the right to own both land and house, and (let him have) inviolability and freedom from fear and safety on land and at sea both for himself and his descendants both in war and in peace time, and (let him have) freedom from taxes on the import and export of all things, and (let him have) access to the council and people in first place after sacred business; let this decree be inscribed on a stone stele and set up in the sanctuary of Apollo Laurelbearer. The strat´goi X son of Y and his colleague; the probouloi A son of B and his colleague."

II Historical Interpretation The discovery that the last word in line 6 is basileis alters fundamentally the task of inter- preting and dating this decree, as it now becomes necessary to reassess who the Alexandros of this was, and to determine who the kings were. Our previous discussion has opened the possibility that king Alexandros lived at a time before our inscription . The letter forms seem to date this honorific decree in the early 3rd century. Hence we are permitted to identify him as a late 4th cent. king Alexandros, that is to say as Alexander the Great or his son Alexandros IV. Such a possibility was not considered by Wilhelm, yet Alexander the Great in particular could easily have been considered a benefactor by the Eretrians, for example in connection 254 Richard A. Billows with the so-called "League of Corinth" of which Alexander was the leader and of which Eretria must have been a member.8 Confirmation of this hypothesis will come from the identification of the other kings. Since they are unnamed, the starting point must be a search for roughly contemporary inscriptions in which kings are similarly introduced without being specifically named, preferrably likewise in the context of an alliance aimed at removing garrisons from the Greek cities. Such inscriptions do in fact exist. There are a number of inscriptions from Eretria and from nearby Athens which share with IG XII 9.212 a most important feature, namely the reference to efforts of a broad coalition of Greek cities, with the assistance of forces provided by a Macedonian ruler, to expel garrisons from Greece: in the last decade of the 4th century king Antigonos Monophthalmos, the Macedonian ruler of western Asia, sent a large force under his son Demetrios Poliorketes to Greece to liberate the Greek cities and expel the garrisons of his rivals Kassandros and Ptolemy.9 It is sufficient to adduce two Eretrian inscriptions: IG XII 9.198 and 199. The former refers to the well-known Antigonid officer Adeimantos son of Androsthenes of Lampsakos, whose activity in Greece at this time is also known from Athens and Delphi, and who is de- scribed in this inscription as [!unagvnizÒmeno! to›]! ÜEllh!in (line 4).10 IG XII 9.199 praises a Macedonian from Amphipolis named Kleochares Pytheou as (lines 3-4) t«n ba!i- l°vn f¤lo[!] and (lines 4-5) to›! !trat[h]go›! to›! t«n ÑE[llÆnvn] ka‹ t«i dÆmvi t«i ÉEretr[i]°vn xrÆ!imo[!]. In short, Kleochares was involved with a general Greek Alliance, which included the Eretrians, while in the service of some unnamed kings who are in fact generally recognised to be Antigonos the One-Eyed and his son and co-king Demetrios.11 Additional evidence is provided by Athenian inscriptions: those which refer to Antigonos and

8 Though no evidence exists explicitly attesting Eretria's membership of the "League of Corinth" set up by Philip and continued by Alexander, it is known that essentially all of mainland Greece (to which Euboia should be reckoned though technically an island) was included except for Sparta, and there is no reason to see in Eretria another exception. Though our knowledge of Alexander's precise relations with most Greek city-states is defective, his description as an euergetes in an Eretrian inscription could certainly cause no surprise: Eretria may, for example, have benefited in some way from the destruction of Thebes in 335, e.g. by acquiring a piece of peraia on the Boiotian shore in the division of Thebes' territories. 9 See on this Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed 169-75 and 225-36. The resemblance of the language of IG XII 9.212 to the many late 4th century inscriptions concerning Demetrios' activities was noted by Picard (loc. cit. [n. 1]), but his explanation—that Alexandros Kraterou had adopted the propaganda of Demetrios for use against Antigonos Gonatas (Demetrios' son!)—is not convincing for the reason I have already outlined (see above, p. 249f.). 10 The inscription is unfortunately only partially preserved, and the crucial line 4 is restored somewhat differently by Ziebarth IG XII 9.198 and by Wilhelm RhM ser. 3 vol. 90 (1941) 21-22. In either case, however, Adeimantos' commitment to the cause of the Hellenes is certainly stressed, and we know in fact that he was an important figure in the Hellenic League founded by Demetrios in 302 (see L. Robert, Hellenica 2 (Paris 1946) 15-33; Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed, app. 3 no. 1), of which organisation one may thus confidently suppose Eretria to have been a member. 11 The original publisher of IG XII 9.199—Tsountas in EA 1887 pp. 80-81— thought that the decree was of the later 3rd century and that the kings referred to were Antigonos Doson and Philippos V. However, those two were never co-rulers, and it has long been recognised that the kings in question are in fact Antigonos the One-Eyed and his son Demetrios: see D. Knoepfler, La Cité de Ménédème, Études et documents sur l'histoire d'Eretrie a la haute époque hellénistique (diss., Paris 1983) ch. 3 no. 10 [non vidi]. IG XII 9.212: A Macedonian Officer at Eretria 255

Demetrios as "the kings" without naming them are IG II2 486, 496+507 (= Syll. 347), 555, 558, and further Horos 4 (1986) at 11-12 and ibid. at 19-20;12 inscriptions which refer to these kings' alliance of the Greeks aimed at liberating Greece are IG II2 492, 498, 555, 558, and 559 (this last honoring a Macedonian from Amphipolis whose name is lost but who could well be the same Kleochares Pytheou known from Eretria!).13 Obviously the overwhelmingly likely conclusion to be drawn from these parallels is that IG XII 9.212 is likewise concerned with the activities of Antigonos I and Demetrios Polior- ketes ca. 304-302, that they are the rulers referred to as the basileis in line 6, and that Arrhi- daios Alexandrou was thus an officer of these kings. A few loose ends remain to be dealt with, however. Reference to Arrhidaios' previous service with Alexander is not a problem: a Samian decree in honor of an officer of kings Anti- gonos and Demetrios (dating hence from 306-301 BC) likewise refers to this officer's previous service under Alexander (M. Schede, AM 44 [1919] 6 no. 5G); and IG II2 561, an Athen- ian decree of 307/6 honoring two officers of Antigonos named Philippos and Iolaos, refers to previous service under a king Alexandros who is certainly either Alexander the Great or (less likely in my view) his homonymous son.14 Previous service under Alexander was in general the hallmark of the outstanding and experienced officer in this period, emphasized in the literary sources (see, e.g. Diodoros 19.69.1). The honors accorded to Arrhidaios in IG XII 9.212 are all paralleled, both as to content and as to phrasing, in honorific decrees firmly dated to the late 4th century, most particularly in IG XII 9.210, a decree of 302/1 honoring three brothers from Antigoneia (= Alexandria Troas?) for aid given to Eretrians performing naval service under Demetrios Poliorketes.15 Like Arrhidaios, these brothers were given the status of proxenoi and euergetai (cf. also IG XII 9.197, 199, 203); the right to own land and houses (also ibid. nos. 197, 199, 202, 204); safety by land and sea in war and in peace (cf. nos. 197, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204); freedom from import and export taxes (cf. nos. 197, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204, 206); privileged access to the council and people (cf. nos. 198, 202, 203); and provision was made for setting up the decree in the sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephoros (cf. nos. 202 and 204). The subscript signature of strategoi and probouloi is unique to IG XII 9.212 at present, but many inscriptions no longer have their endings preserved. The heading, mentioning the strategoi and probouloi as

12 Though most of these inscriptions are fragmentary and it is possible that Antigonos and/or Demetrios could have been named in the lost portions of some of them, enough of the inscription in Horos 4 (1986) 11- 12 survives to make it clear that the kings were not named in it, and it is significant that in IG II2 486—a decree passed on the same day as the former and worded almost the same—the kings are introduced in the surviv- ing first half without identification. 13 See IG XII suppl. p. 178 and cf. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed, app. 3 no. 58. On Antigonos' al- liances aimed at Greek freedom see further Billows as cited in n. 9 above. 14 On the Samian decree see further Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed app. 3 no. 141; on the Athenian decree and the controversy over the king Alexandros referred to in it, see Billows Antigonos app. 3 nos. 57 and 93. 15 See further on this Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed 360 and app. 3 nos. 13, 43 and 53. Antigonos founded a number of cities named Antigoneia between 310 and 302 (see Billows, ibid. 292-305) of which the later Alexandria Troas was one, renamed by Lysimachos after the battle of Ipsos. 256 Richard A. Billows

proposers, cannot currently be shown in an inscription definitely dated in the 4th century, but it appears at the very beginning of the 3rd, e.g. in the decrees IG XII 9.205 and 206. More- over, both probouloi and strategoi are known at Eretria from late 4th century inscriptions (see IG XII 9.191 lines 42-44; 198 line 21). The probouloi were responsible for preparing the agenda for and chairing meetings of the assembly, while the strategoi were clearly the chief executive officers.16 It is known, finally, that Eretria and the rest of Euboia played a significant role in the activities of Demetrios Poliorketes in the years 304-302. I have already mentioned the Eretrian decrees honoring Demetrios' collaborators Adeimantos of Lampsakos (IG XII 9.198), Kle- ochares of Amphipolis (ibid. 199), and the three brothers Glaukippos, Hippodamas, and Apollonios of Antigoneia (ibid. 210); the first of these decrees shows that Eretria was probably a member of the Hellenic League set up by Antigonos and Demetrios,while the third indi- cates that an Eretrian contingent served in Demetrios' fleet, probably in 302 (see above, nn. 10 and 15). It is probable, furthermore, that Demetrios liberated Eretria from a foreign garrison in 304: Diodoros 20.100.6 records that when Demetrios returned to Greece in late 304 his first action was to free the city of Chalkis on Euboia from a Boiotian garrison (the Boio- tians were allied to Kassandros at the time), and it is likely that Eretria was also under Boio- tian rule at this time.17 All the circumstances of our decree thus fit very well with what is known of the period 304-302: the mention of kings (in the plural), of a Greek alliance, and of dismissal of garrisons all point this way. There remains only the matter of the letter forms, identified by Wilhelm as belonging to the first half of the 3rd century. However, the dating of letter forms is not an exact science, and without wishing in any way to dispute in general Wil- helm's authority on this matter, it is clear that the letter forms do not in fact stand in the way of a date at the very end of the 4th century.18 In conclusion, then, it is clear that IG XII 9.212 is to be grouped with nos. 198, 199, and 210 (and a host of contemporary Athenian inscriptions) as yet one more document illustrating the campaign of Antigonos Monophthalmos' army, under the leadership of his son and co- king Demetrios Poliorketes, to free the Greek cities from the influence of Kassandros in 304- 302 BC. Arrhidaios Alexandrou, the recipient of the honors in this decree, is nowhere else mentioned in our extant sources on the reigns of Antigonos and Demetrios. Given his service under Alexander and the fulsome nature of the honors accorded him, he was clearly a man of considerable rank and standing. It is, therefore, just conceivable that he is to be identified with the only other Arrhidaios known to have served under Alexander: the man who was in

16 See on the probouloi Gschnitzer in RE s.v. proboulos; and J. Tréheux, "Sur les probouloi en Grèce" BCH 113 (1989) 241-46. On the probouloi and strategoi specifically at Eretria see M. Holleaux, "Note sur en décret d'Eretrie," Études d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques I (Paris 1938) 41-73 at 50-56. 17 For this see Holleaux, loc. cit. (n. 16 above); and cf. in general on Boiotia in this period the excellent account of B. Gullath, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Boiotiens in der Zeit Alexanders und der Diadochen (Frankfurt 1982) 179-83. 18 Prof. Knoepfler, who has worked extensively on the Hellenistic inscriptions of Eretria, is kind enough to inform me that, while he himself adheres to Wilhelm's dating of this inscription, "l'écriture pourrait, à la rigueur, dater de la fin du 4e siècle". IG XII 9.212: A Macedonian Officer at Eretria 257

323 placed in charge of the arrangements for Alexander's funeral, was temporary joint regent of the empire in 320, and from late 320 until 318 was satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia.19 This man became an enemy of Antigonos Monophthalmos in 318 and was driven from his satrapy by Antigonos' forces and shut up in the city of Kios, whence he escaped in 317 only to join Polyperchon's admiral Kleitos in his naval campaign against Antigonos in the Propontis, which ended in disaster near Byzantion, the entire fleet being captured or destroyed by Anti- gonos and Kleitos being killed while trying to escape (see Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed, 82-87). Many former enemies captured by Antigonos subsequently became reconciled to him and served with distinction under him, however, so that it is possible that Arrhidaios was captured in this naval battle, persuaded to take service with Antigonos, and appeared in Greece with Demetrios in that capacity.20 At any rate, as uncertain as this conjectural identification of Arrhidaios Alexandrou must remain at present, he is clearly to be added to the im- pressive and growing dossier of officers of Antigonos Monophthalmos honored by Greek cities, another indication of the extraordinary enthusiasm aroused among the Greeks by Anti- gonos' espousal of the cause of Greek freedom in 314 and the subsequent decade.21

Columbia University Richard A. Billows

19 On this Arrhidaios and his career see J. Kaerst in RE s.v. no. 5; and cf. I. Ephesos 5 no. 1451. 20 For former enemies taken into Antigonos' service after capture in battle, see e.g. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed app. 3 nos. 35 (Dokimos), 51 (Hieronymos of Kardia), and 73 (Mithridates Ktistes). 21 See further on this Billows Antigonos the One-Eyed 231-36. In closing, I should like to express my heartfelt gratitude to several scholars who have helped me with this paper: professors Christian Habicht, Erich Gruen, Ronald Stroud, Raphael Sealey, and Ludwig Koenen, the editor of ZPE to whom I had submitted this article. Needless to say, however, they should not be held responsible for the views expressed herein. TAFEL VII

a) IG XII 9.2121: a) entire stone; b) detail of the right edge of lines 3-7 (the arrow points of the ! of ba!ilei! at the end of line 6 which is discussed on p. 252).